1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the second and sixth instances of the first instance court’s ruling “not later than October 2018” is dismissed as “not later than October 2008”; and (b) the court’s ruling is identical to that of the first instance court, except for addition of the judgment in the next instance trial, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on addition

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s judgment on the grounds for appeal showed each description of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including paper numbers), it is insufficient to recognize the fact that a payment agreement of KRW 481 million is entered as the grounds for appeal, as alleged in the grounds for appeal, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the grounds for appeal are contrary thereto cannot be accepted.

B. The Plaintiff established and operated the Company C as the Defendant and the Defendant, and the relationship of partnership was terminated due to dissolution of the Company C. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim as the distribution of residual property. However, even if the Defendant was in a partnership business relationship as alleged in the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have any remaining business of the partnership, in the event the partnership is dissolved due to the achievement of the partnership’s objective, etc., and the remaining assets remain, without undergoing separate liquidation procedures, each union member may immediately demand the distribution of residual property within the scope of its ratio of the distribution of residual property.

The claim for distribution of remaining property is allowed only to the extent of the part exceeding the distribution ratio only when a partner, who is the other party to the claim, owns the remaining property in excess of the distribution ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da87214, Apr. 23, 2009). This court against the president of the Korea Employment Agency for Disabled Persons.